Chambers UK 2020

Serle Court is sought after for its strength in offshore trusts matters, and has a wealth of experience of acting in the Cayman and Channel Islands, the BVI, Bermuda and the Bahamas, with additional strength in cases in China and Hong Kong. It is regularly instructed by trustees and leading offshore firms. Members were recently instructed in Wong v Grand View PTC and Others, a USD10 billion dispute over the validity and operation of five Bermuda purpose trusts. One source comments: "The barristers are all completely on top of their game and are not afraid to hold strong opinions on legal issues, while remaining commercial."

Client Service: "The clerks are very personable and mindful of the service for their international clients."

Silks

Alan Boyle QC: "A brilliant advocate and fierce opponent." 

Dakis Hagen QC: "He is tremendous to work with, incredibly smart, very insightful and a real team player." "A go-to QC for offshore trusts work."

Elizabeth Jones QC: "She has got a great reputation."

Frank Hinks QC: "If you have a really hard trusts problem, he is a go-to person."

John Machell QC: "He gives clear, strategic advice."

Jonathan Adkin QC: "A very good, thorough lawyer."

Philip Jones QC: "He is a modern, responsive and communicative counsel who is very easy to work with as a team. He is able to explain his views in an easily digestible manner."

Philip Marshall QC: "Very pragmatic and hands-on." "He is a tough opponent – he'll rip apart your case if he can."

Richard Wilson QC: "He is pragmatic in his advice and a really good person to have as part of your team." "Astute and responsive."

Juniors

Giles Richardson: "Very responsive, helpful and thorough. He provides good insights." "He's outstanding – incredibly technically able and on top of his game, but very easy to work with."  

James Brightwell: "For trusts law there is no one better at the junior Bar. He has quite exceptional intellect, is phenomenal on trusts law and is a wonderful tactician." "Great to work with, user-friendly, technically very highly skilled and great at forming arguments and explanations about really complex areas."

Kathryn Purkis: "She is really sensible, a pleasure to work with and has a lovely way of defusing unnecessary tension with the other side."

Nicholas Harrison: "He lives his cases and knows every corner and every scrap of detail."

Ruth Jordan: "She is meticulous in her review of papers." "She works incredibly hard and doesn't miss anything. She has a great ability to make connections in different jurisdictions."

Legal 500 2020

Silks:

Alan Boyle QC: "One of the best of the best: a stellar intellect."

Frank Hinks QC: "Very thorough and practical in his advice."

Jonathan Adkin QC: "A strong and well-measured presence in court, he cuts through the issues in a case swiftly and pragmatically."

John Machell QC: "A very modern-type Silk with a very sharp mind."

Philip Marshall QC: "A brilliant and fearless advocate - you definitely want him on your side."

Elizabeth Jones QC: "Exceptional: she can lead a very large team of lawyers in the right direction."

Philip Jones QC: "A phenomenal barrister with hard-to-find trial skills and strategic prowess."

Richard Wilson QC: "He is extremely bright, eloquent and responsive. "

Dakis Hagen QC: "Not only is he exceptionally clever and delightful to work with, he is extraordinary hardworking."

Juniors:

James Brightwell: "His technical knowledge around trusts is superb."

Kathryn Purkis: "Her ability to find solutions to problems is second-to-none"

Matthew Morrison:  "One of the finest of his generation: he combines a formidable intellect with a user-friendly manner."

Timothy Collingwood: "An very bright and incredibly nice senior-junior specialising in company law."

Giles Richardson: "Exceptionally good: clients get a QC quality."

Ruth Jordan: "Very personable, a forthright advocate and a very able lawyer."

Adil Mohamedbhai: "Punchy, thoughtful and direct, he is always on his client's side."

Liongate v Diallard and others:

Cayman Islands proceedings stemming from breach of fiduciary duty allegations arising from investment decisions.

Shanda Games:

A case concerning a Chinese-controlled company seeking removal from the NYSE listings, in shares valuation hearings before the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal.

Green Elite:

Involving a BVI company with shares in a Hong Kong listed company active in Mainland China. The case concerned what rights shareholders have to information from directors, a key issue of BVI company law.

Glenn v Watson (Re Spartan Capital Limited):

Concerning New Zealand entrepreneur and philanthropist Sir Owen Glenn in a dispute over a joint venture company.

Kingate Global Fund v Kingate Management:

A case in Bermuda concerning a claim arising out of the Madoff fraud.

Guernsey litigation Investec Trust (Guernsey) Limited v Glenalla Properties Ltd:

On 23 April 2018, the Privy Council handed down its advice in the weighty and long-running Guernsey litigation of Investec Trust (Guernsey) Limited v Glenalla Properties Ltd [2018] UKPC 7, involving a Jersey proper law trust. The advice was given by Lord Hodge on behalf of the Board (Lord Mance dissenting on two points, and Lord Briggs on one aspect of the reasoning).

The case is significant firstly for its treatment of the public international law issues arising from Article 32 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 (“TJL”). Where a trustee is a party to a transaction or matter affecting the trust and if the other party knows that the trustee is acting as trustee, Article 32(1)(a) restricts that party’s claims to the trust property. The question for the court was whether this local limitation should be recognised as applying where the obligations themselves were non-Jersey obligations, being adjudicated on outside of Jersey. The Board by a majority upheld the decision of the Guernsey Court of Appeal that in such a situation, the Jersey law should nonetheless apply. They were not persuaded that Article 32 should be characterised as partially discharging the trustee’s obligation to the third party (which would have suggested that the proper law was that of the underlying obligation rather than the trusteeship). Rather, they considered that the Article did not work any discharge of liability but, together with the definition of a trust in Article 2, should be understood as creating a special status for Jersey trustees. However, the decision went wider: see paras 88ff of the judgment: “… in the Board’s opinion, the time has come to recognise that as a general rule the common law will recognise and give effect to limitations of liability which arise under an entity’s constitutive law by reason of the particular status or capacity in which its members or officers assume an obligation…. The Board would not confine this rule to entities which have separate legal personality but would apply it to partnerships … associations of persons without legal personality and also a Jersey or Guernsey trust… “ (the Trusts (Guernsey) Law 2007 (“TGL”) having similar provisions in sections 1 and 42). The Board gave two other reasons for its conclusion, first, by construing section 65 of the TGL as obliging the Guernsey court to apply the entire law of Jersey, including Article 32, to the question, and secondly, by applying Jersey law seemingly for policy reasons as a concomitant to insulating trust assets from exposure to personal transactions. Lord Mance provided a powerful dissenting opinion in relation to all of these reasons, and Lord Briggs on the first of those.

Secondly, the Board has confirmed that whilst Article 32 ensures that a Jersey trustee has no personal liability for trust obligations, and the creditor no claim in rem against the trust assets, it reversed the Guernsey Court of Appeal in three respects:

(a) the Board held that Article 32 offers the trustee no discharge once the trust fund is exhausted.

(b) Article 32 does not have the effect of enabling a creditor to seek payment from the trustee regardless of the state of the account between the trustee and the beneficiaries. The creditor has no right to the trust fund, other than through its right of subrogation to any entitlement the trustee might have to  indemnity from the trust fund for the obligation to the creditor. If there are any grounds for denying the trustee that indemnity in whole or in part, whether as a result of the obligations having been unreasonably incurred, or as a result of there being any cross-claim against the trustee for breach of trust  (whether related to the creation of the obligation or not), the creditor is affected too; their position is not improved by Article 32.

(c) Article 32 does not apply to costs orders made against trustees, which are always liabilities personal to the trustee.

Thirdly, the Board has determined that the availability of the statutory indemnity offered by Article 26(2) of the TJL falls to be assessed when the liability for which the indemnity is sought, is first incurred. There is no possibility of considering whether the indemnity should be available with the benefit of the facts known at the time it is claimed. Three reasons were given for this: the first relating to the limited ambition of the language of Article 26 itself (though Article 26 would sit alongside an indemnity under the general law), the second relating to the fact that events after the fact could best be responded to by claims for breach of trust, and the third being that otherwise a trustee exoneration clause may be in effect undercut by arguments about the unreasonable incurring or, as in this case, retention of liabilities.

The decision also confirmed that a claim in restitution cannot be maintained in the context of a contractual matrix, and dealt with various interlocutory matters.

Kathryn Purkis of Serle Court appeared as junior counsel for the current trustees, led by Lord Goldsmith QC. James Brightwell of Serle Court appeared as junior counsel for the former trustees, led by Simon Taube QC.

Grupa Ozarow v Clean Energy Trading CL:

Acted for the defendant company trading in Carbon Credits in successfully discharging an ex parte injunction obtained in support of Polish proceedings on the basis, inter alia, that the relevant EU jurisdiction rules were arguably infringed.

O’Keefe & Anor v Caner & Ors:

Kathryn Purkis led by Lord Goldsmith QC acted for the First Defendant in O’Keefe & Anor v Caner & Ors, in which it was decided on expert evidence that a 10-year limitation period applied to claims for breaches of directors’ duties under the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991, and not the 3 year trusts period and/or tort period, as many practitioners have considered. The decision is not binding in Jersey but it will have persuasive value in any local consideration of the point, which has been in issue for many years though never conclusively determined. 

Fiona Trust:

Dominic Dowley QC and Justin Higgo are instructed in the Fiona litigation - a trial of conspiracy and bribery claims against the former director general of Sovcomflot, the state-owned Russian commercial fleet operator, in respect of a series of ship financing, S&P, commission and chartering transactions alledged to have been the product of corrupt relationships. The case, worth over US$600m, was tried by Andrew Smith J in the Commercial Court in October 2009 and judgment was delivered in December 2010.  The matter is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal in March 2013. 

Alhamrani v Alhamrani:

The case revolved around a very substantial family trust and involved extensive allegations of breaches of trust and fiduciary duty.  The litigation involved innumerable interlocutory hearings over a number of years which ruled on significant trust law issues, including the availability of 'dog leg' claims [2007] JRC 026 and trustees' rights to indemnification for legal costs incurred by them [2007] JLR 527.